Jump to content

Who here is a global warming skeptic?


Recommended Posts

Here is an idea that came to me the other day. If CO2 is like a warm fuzzy blanket that traps heat making the earth warmer, does the same CO2 trap the IR heat that is coming from the sun, in space, making the earth cooler? It turns out that about 50% of the sun's solar energy output in the form of IR. Below is a picture of the sun in the IR spectrum.

 

infrared.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 942
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data ga

Lots of things.   I am pretty well convinced that there is a problem with CO2 levels and decreasing Ph of the oceans. This could be serious indeed.   I am also convinced, based on isotope abundan

Can you please post some kind of evidence - preferably new evidence - which made you come to this conclusion? And FOX News does not count. Instead of forcing the climate sciences to "prove" that clim

Posted Images

Whilst I understand the nuances of what you have said I suggest a default position of doubt is not an appropriate one. Most people are not capable of a genuine sceptical critique of complex science and doubting the truth of what an overwhelming majority of experts within a field say until personally satisfied otherwise is a path more likely to lead to error than not. I suggest the default position should be to take what the experts say as true unless there are legitimate grounds for doubt - such doubt then to be followed by thorough and competent investigation.

 

Despite the refrains about falling back on appeals to authority, such deferring to experts is actually the most appropriate position for people without relevant expertise to take. More importantly failure to take the expert advice seriously is, for those in positions of trust and responsibility, potentially negligent and where the consequences can be shown to have resulted in harm to others, it could be criminally negligent.

 

I'm fairly sure that for holders of public and corporate postions of trust, unless you have appropriate expertise yourself and have reasonable grounds to disagree with your peers, disregarding expert advice would be counted as negligent, ie that would in line with precedents of law in most jurisdictions when it comes to questions of negligence.

 

What would make me doubt the science on climate? Were panels of independent experts within the most respected science advisory bodies like US National Academy of Sciences or UK's Royal Society to find egregious errors, inconsistencies or malpractice sufficient to call the fundamentals into question I would pay attention. Such panels have, on the contrary, found the science to be valid and consistent. Those organisations have well and truly earned their reputations for probity, excellence and community service; they deserve to be taken seriously.

Ken, you make excellent points, but we are probably more closely aligned than you think. A key phrase, I think, behind your position is "Despite the refrains about falling back on appeals to authority, such deferring to experts is actually the most appropriate position for people without relevant expertise to take." (Emphasis mine.)

 

At the risk of sounding elitist, this is a science forum and many of its members are practicing scientists, or persons trained in science. Therefore we have the expertise of knowing what constitutes good and bad application of scientific method. We have a clear understanding of the term consensus and how one is constructed. It is this expertise that can be applied to claims based on science and should be applied on matters with as much import as AGW.

 

My doubts, listed in my earlier post, were addressed by reviewing the words of the experts and their consensus as presented in the IPCC reports. It was not a matter of taking them at their words, but - by assessing how they had arrived at their conclusions - satisfying myself that any reservations had been properly met.

 

I think it is obligatory for anyone with science training to adopt the same position. For anyone without such training and lacking a natural scientific bent they should, as you suggest, rely upon the experts' positions. Alternatively, if they insist on unfounded challenges to expert opinion, they may be best to keep their mouths shut to match the status of their minds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Shelagh

 

We do not work like that. You either discuss matters with all members or you bow out completely. You do not get to make an argument for all to see and then refuse to answer those who challenge you. By the way - "agreeing to disagree" is pretty nearly the antithesis of science; we agree to follow the evidence not to stick to our prejudices in the face of it.

 

Your attitude in the two global warming threads leaves a lot to be desired. Your arguments have seemed to consist of a foul admixture of straw men, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and bald assertions; we will not allow this to continue - especially in a thread on a subject which is settled science.

 

This is a science forum and we refuse to allow political and rhetorical arguments to flourish in the science fora. The attitude displayed in the quoted post will not be tolerated - if you wish to continue to post on climate change without risking sanction please limit yourself to scientific arguments founded on fact rather than personal opinion and anecdotage.

 

Please explain how I should discuss matters with members on my "ignore" list.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain how I should discuss matters with members on my "ignore" list.

 

 

Either don’t ignore them or don’t post; if they make valid points why would you put them on your ignore list; if you can’t refute their point then you’ve lost the debate, if you can then why ignore them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the text of the recent Paris Agreement. While the agreement is limited in extent and is not legally binding, but rather a statement of intent, it is surely encouraging that 196 governments have demonstrated they are not so skeptical that they would avoid taking some steps towards addressing the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure whether this is scientific/relevant enough or not. This research suggests that diminished solar activity around 2030 will have a cooling effect:

 

Their predictions using the model suggest an interesting longer-term trend beyond the 11-year cycle. It shows that solar activity will fall by 60 percent during the 2030s, to conditions last seen during the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the Suns northern and southern hemispheres. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent, says Zharkova. http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/09/royal-astronomical-societys-national-astronomy-meeting-2015-report-4/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure whether this is scientific/relevant enough or not. This research suggests that diminished solar activity around 2030 will have a cooling effect:

 

 

 

Not, whilst we can control what we do to our atmosphere, we can’t possibly influence the Sun; maybe that will happen, maybe not, it changes nothing in this debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure whether this is scientific/relevant enough or not. This research suggests that diminished solar activity around 2030 will have a cooling effect:

 

If that does happen, it might just slow down some of the effects of CO2. Which would obviously be welcome, to buy a bit of time if nothing else. But then the Sun's output will rise again and we will be back on the same track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that does happen, it might just slow down some of the effects of CO2. Which would obviously be welcome, to buy a bit of time if nothing else. But then the Sun's output will rise again and we will be back on the same track.

If the prediction is correct, the cooling effect will occur over the period of a decade, by which time many changes will have taken place and new technology/research will be available:

 

The model predicts that the magnetic wave pairs will become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. Then during Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch, cancelling one another out. This will cause a significant reduction in solar activity. In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a Maunder minimum, says Zharkova.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the prediction is correct, the cooling effect will occur over the period of a decade, by which time many changes will have taken place and new technology/research will be available:

 

 

But this is what I don't understand: if you don't think CO2 is responsible for climate change, why do you think new technology is required?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the prediction is correct but then we have more than a decade to prepare for the possibility that the prediction turns out to be false.


But then you don’t seem to believe in predictive models, so why this one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But this is what I don't understand: if you don't think CO2 is responsible for climate change, why do you think new technology is required?

New technology will be available by 2030, not because it is required but because technological advances are always ongoing. Two research papers have been published since this paper was presented at the astronomy conference, both of which produced models suggesting that the cooling effect would be slight and would be limited to the northern hemisphere. With such differences of opinion, we won't know the full impact for at least five years. By then, with further research, the predictions will be more accurate.

Maybe the prediction is correct but then we have more than a decade to prepare for the possibility that the prediction turns out to be false. But then you dont seem to believe in predictive models, so why this one?

 

I don't believe in the models. I believe in looking through the window to see what the real world is doing and taking the necessary steps to make the world a cleaner, safer place.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in the models. I believe in looking through the window to see what the real world is doing and taking the necessary steps to make the world a cleaner, safer place.

Looking through the window identified the hole in the ozone layer.

 

Looking through the window did not identify the cause of the hole in the ozone layer.

 

Models identified the cause of the hole in the ozone layer and therefore pointed to the solution that was then implemented. The model proved reasonably accurate and thus, with the solution implemented, the ozone layer is repairing itself.

 

Since you do not believe in models then you must disbelieve that simple sequence. Which part of the sequence do you believe is inaccurate?

 

You mentioned in earlier posts you want better flood defenses. Are you unaware that the location, structure and size of flood defenses are based upon models? Is your alternative solution to..... well, how do you plan to build these flood defenses effectively and economically without models? You don't seem to have thought this through.

Edited by Ophiolite
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm... OK.... So we agree to agree? I'm confused?

 

Edit/ cross posted/ @ shelagh,

The literature is confusing. Here are the two most recent studies:

 

Oxford University: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD022022/full

 

Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

As we're nearing 50 pages, it is clear that this thread has lost its initial purpose and any good or informative posts are by now lost in the quagmire. There is little benefit to be derived from continuing this thread as it is, and so staff have decided to close it.

Shelagh, for the record: your posts in this thread leave much to be desired. If you hope to continue here in a positive and productive manner I would suggest you make a better attempt at intelligent discussion. You have made assertion upon assertion here and yet when questioned on it, the best you can do is claim martyrdom or post a link to a blog. This is unacceptable and we will not tolerate it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.